To insure public safety, there are many laws and regulations governing our surface and ground water, food, and other aspects of modern life. For example, EPA published the Ground Water Rule in the Federal Register on Nov. 8, 2006. The purpose of the rule is to provide for increased protection against microbial pathogens in public water systems that use ground water sources. EPA is particularly concerned about ground water systems that are susceptible to fecal contamination since disease-causing pathogens may be found in fecal contamination. Under this rule, it is possible that ground water must be monitored so that one sample must be collected at each ground water source in use at the time the water system coliform-positive sample was collected. The triggered source water sample must be analyzed for the presence of a fecal indicator as specified in the rule.
Further, all samples taken should be recorded in an on-site sample log book or on a sample collection form if it is to be sent to a laboratory for analysis. Sample log books and sample collection forms should contain the following information: Name of system (e.g., Public Water System Identification number); Sample site location; Sample type (assessment, triggered); Sampler's name; Sample number; Date of sample collection; Time of sample collection and Analysis requested. Failure to follow these, and other requirements under the rules, can result in a penalty which can include fines up to $25,000, remediation plans and even up to $15,000 per day penalties for failure to follow EPA orders.
For other areas, regulations, instructions, procedures and requirements exist such as with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 governing solid and hazardous waste management. Penalties associated with failure to comply with the RCRA is based upon the penalty calculation system established through U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's RCRA Civil Penalty Policy (Section 3008 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6928). Under the RCRA, the seriousness of the violation and any good faith efforts to comply with applicable requirements are to be considered in assessing a penalty. Consistent with this statutory direction, this Penalty Policy consists of: (1) determining a gravity-based penalty for a particular violation from a penalty assessment matrix, (2) adding a “multi-day” component, as appropriate, to account for a violation's duration, (3) adjusting the sum of the gravity-based and multi-day components, up or down, for case specific circumstances, and (4) adding to this amount the appropriate economic benefit gained through non-compliance. Obviously, having a proper monitoring and inspection process to avoid penalties is desirable.
Similar risks are also associated with air pollution under the Clean Air Act (CAA). CAA is comprehensive federal law that regulates air emissions from stationary and mobile sources. The EPA works with its federal, state and tribal regulatory partners to assure compliance with clean air laws and regulations in order to protect human health and the environment. Failure to comply with these regulations can result in severe penalties with far reaching ramifications from fines to discouraging businesses to locate particular geographic regions. Again, having sufficient inspection and monitoring processes and systems in place will reduce the risks associated with violations of the CAA.
Operationally, when complying with these regulations and performing monitoring and inspections, there are many other items that should be inspected and corrected. For example, ground water is typically tested from wells. The wells are locked from unauthorized access for safety reasons. When the ground water is inspected, the lock on the well should also be inspected. Other items that can interfere with a proper inspection for ground water include the depth measurement is out of range, identification of the well is no longer legible, vegetation is growing over the pad, the pad is broken or damaged, the well casing is damaged or the scheduled reading of a well was missed or improperly taken.
Operational items that can be present for RCRA inspections can include improperly labeled waste containers, satellite containers can be full, secondary containment can be damaged, spill response materials and kits can be missing or damaged, accumulation time limits can be approaching, storage and transportation tanks can be damaged and lines and valves can be damaged. Air pollution testing and inspections can include readings that are out of the expected range, maintenance is required of air pollution control equipment and scheduled readings are missed.
In each of the cases of operational abnormalities, regulations may not be followed due to operational items and violations can be caused. Therefore, it would be advantageous to have a system which would account for the operational items, offer real time feedback concerning the operational items and allow for the onsite/infield remediation or solution to identified problems without having the infield operator to make return trips to the remote location.
Additionally, there are several regulatory inspections that are required to be preformed. These inspections have to be documents to comply with the appropriate regulation. The regulatory structure states which information should be collected and reported. In the event that a location owner or company wishes to increase the information that is inspected, a task that should be encouraged, several regulations require that this additional information be included in the regulatory required report. Therefore, the reporting entity is put in a position that to increase the number of inspection actions, the entity will increase its regulatory restrictions; obviously not a position that is advantageous. Therefore, there is a need for a system that allows for the collection of inspection results without increasing the regulatory burden placed upon the inspecting entity.
Several attempts have been made to automate testing and measurements, but none are directed to providing an infield operator with real-time feedback for remediation or error correcting based upon the actions taken, measured or observed by the infield operator while the infield operator is still at the testing locations. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 7,415,357 is directed to an Automated Oil Well Test Classification and discloses systems, methods, and software for statistical analysis and classification of oil well tests. Some embodiments include receiving a first set of oil well test results from one or more measurement devices of a well test separator, storing the first set of oil well test results in a database, and annotating one or more tests of the first set oil well test results. The annotated test results are then used to build one or more classification models to enable automated oil well test classification as new oil well tests are performed.
United States Patent Publication 2006/0235741 is directed to a system and method for monitoring and reporting. This reference uses a work order, defining a target to be inspected at a remote site and including an inspection plan for collecting target inspection information, is generated on a base-station system and transferred to a portable computing system. Inspection data are collected pursuant to the inspection plan on the portable computing system. Inspection data are transferred from the portable computing system to the base-station system for storage and the generation of related reports. This reference does not provide the infield operator with real-time feedback concerning the recorded information and does not present the infield operator with error correcting steps or remediation steps to take while the infield operator remains at the remote location.
Accordingly, it would be advantageous to have a system which allowed for environmental inspection information that is collected at a remote location infield to be transmitted to a central location for analysis with results determined and transmitted back to the remote location for the infield operator to use for performing remediation.